| Message ID | 20180331185536.4835-1-bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:25:36AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote: > expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size, > using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct. > > Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > migration/migration.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c > index 58bd382730..4e43dc4f92 100644 > --- a/migration/migration.c > +++ b/migration/migration.c > @@ -2245,8 +2245,7 @@ static void migration_update_counters(MigrationState *s, > * recalculate. 10000 is a small enough number for our purposes > */ > if (ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate && transferred > 10000) { > - s->expected_downtime = ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate * > - qemu_target_page_size() / bandwidth; > + s->expected_downtime = ram_bytes_remaining() / bandwidth; This field was removed in e4ed1541ac ("savevm: New save live migration method: pending", 2012-12-20), in which remaing RAM was used. And it was added back in 90f8ae724a ("migration: calculate expected_downtime", 2013-02-22), in which dirty rate was used. However I didn't find a clue on why we changed from using remaining RAM to using dirty rate... So I'll leave this question to Juan. Besides, I'm a bit confused on when we'll want such a value. AFAIU precopy is mostly used by setting up the target downtime before hand, so we should already know the downtime before hand. Then why we want to observe such a thing? Thanks,
On 2018-04-03 11:40, Peter Xu wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:25:36AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote: >> expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * >> page_size, >> using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct. >> >> Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> migration/migration.c | 3 +-- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c >> index 58bd382730..4e43dc4f92 100644 >> --- a/migration/migration.c >> +++ b/migration/migration.c >> @@ -2245,8 +2245,7 @@ static void >> migration_update_counters(MigrationState *s, >> * recalculate. 10000 is a small enough number for our purposes >> */ >> if (ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate && transferred > 10000) { >> - s->expected_downtime = ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate * >> - qemu_target_page_size() / bandwidth; >> + s->expected_downtime = ram_bytes_remaining() / bandwidth; > > This field was removed in e4ed1541ac ("savevm: New save live migration > method: pending", 2012-12-20), in which remaing RAM was used. > > And it was added back in 90f8ae724a ("migration: calculate > expected_downtime", 2013-02-22), in which dirty rate was used. > > However I didn't find a clue on why we changed from using remaining > RAM to using dirty rate... So I'll leave this question to Juan. > > Besides, I'm a bit confused on when we'll want such a value. AFAIU > precopy is mostly used by setting up the target downtime before hand, > so we should already know the downtime before hand. Then why we want > to observe such a thing? Thanks Peter Xu for reviewing, I tested precopy migration with 16M hugepage backed ppc guest and granularity of page size in migration is 4K so any page dirtied would result in 4096 pages to be transmitted again, this led for migration to continue endless, default migrate_parameters: downtime-limit: 300 milliseconds info migrate: expected downtime: 1475 milliseconds Migration status: active total time: 130874 milliseconds expected downtime: 1475 milliseconds setup: 3475 milliseconds transferred ram: 18197383 kbytes throughput: 866.83 mbps remaining ram: 376892 kbytes total ram: 8388864 kbytes duplicate: 1678265 pages skipped: 0 pages normal: 4536795 pages normal bytes: 18147180 kbytes dirty sync count: 6 page size: 4 kbytes dirty pages rate: 39044 pages In order to complete migration I configured downtime-limit to 1475 milliseconds but still migration was endless. Later calculated expected downtime by remaining ram 376892 Kbytes / 866.83 mbps yeilded 3478.34 milliseconds and configuring it as downtime-limit succeeds the migration to complete. This led to the conclusion that expected downtime is not accurate. Regards, Balamuruhan S > > Thanks,
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 11:00:00PM +0530, bala24 wrote: > On 2018-04-03 11:40, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:25:36AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote: > > > expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * > > > page_size, > > > using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > migration/migration.c | 3 +-- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c > > > index 58bd382730..4e43dc4f92 100644 > > > --- a/migration/migration.c > > > +++ b/migration/migration.c > > > @@ -2245,8 +2245,7 @@ static void > > > migration_update_counters(MigrationState *s, > > > * recalculate. 10000 is a small enough number for our purposes > > > */ > > > if (ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate && transferred > 10000) { > > > - s->expected_downtime = ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate * > > > - qemu_target_page_size() / bandwidth; > > > + s->expected_downtime = ram_bytes_remaining() / bandwidth; > > > > This field was removed in e4ed1541ac ("savevm: New save live migration > > method: pending", 2012-12-20), in which remaing RAM was used. > > > > And it was added back in 90f8ae724a ("migration: calculate > > expected_downtime", 2013-02-22), in which dirty rate was used. > > > > However I didn't find a clue on why we changed from using remaining > > RAM to using dirty rate... So I'll leave this question to Juan. > > > > Besides, I'm a bit confused on when we'll want such a value. AFAIU > > precopy is mostly used by setting up the target downtime before hand, > > so we should already know the downtime before hand. Then why we want > > to observe such a thing? > > Thanks Peter Xu for reviewing, > > I tested precopy migration with 16M hugepage backed ppc guest and > granularity > of page size in migration is 4K so any page dirtied would result in 4096 > pages > to be transmitted again, this led for migration to continue endless, > > default migrate_parameters: > downtime-limit: 300 milliseconds > > info migrate: > expected downtime: 1475 milliseconds > > Migration status: active > total time: 130874 milliseconds > expected downtime: 1475 milliseconds > setup: 3475 milliseconds > transferred ram: 18197383 kbytes > throughput: 866.83 mbps > remaining ram: 376892 kbytes > total ram: 8388864 kbytes > duplicate: 1678265 pages > skipped: 0 pages > normal: 4536795 pages > normal bytes: 18147180 kbytes > dirty sync count: 6 > page size: 4 kbytes > dirty pages rate: 39044 pages > > In order to complete migration I configured downtime-limit to 1475 > milliseconds but still migration was endless. Later calculated expected > downtime by remaining ram 376892 Kbytes / 866.83 mbps yeilded 3478.34 > milliseconds and configuring it as downtime-limit succeeds the migration > to complete. This led to the conclusion that expected downtime is not > accurate. Hmm, thanks for the information. I'd say your calculation seems reasonable to me: it shows how long time will it need if we stop the VM now on source immediately and migrate the rest. However Juan might have an explanation on existing algorithm which I would like to know too. So still I'll put aside the "which one is better" question. For your use case, you can have a look on either of below way to have a converged migration: - auto-converge: that's a migration capability that throttles CPU usage of guests - postcopy: that'll let you start the destination VM even without transferring all the RAMs before hand Either of the technique can be configured via "migrate_set_capability" HMP command or "migrate-set-capabilities" QMP command (some googling would show detailed steps). And, either of above should help you to migrate successfully in this hard-to-converge scenario, instead of your current way (observing downtime, set downtime). Meanwhile, I'm thinking whether instead of observing the downtime in real time, whether we should introduce a command to stop the VM immediately to migrate the rest when we want, or, a new parameter to current "migrate" command.
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:25:36AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote: >> expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size, >> using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct. >> >> Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> migration/migration.c | 3 +-- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c >> index 58bd382730..4e43dc4f92 100644 >> --- a/migration/migration.c >> +++ b/migration/migration.c >> @@ -2245,8 +2245,7 @@ static void migration_update_counters(MigrationState *s, >> * recalculate. 10000 is a small enough number for our purposes >> */ >> if (ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate && transferred > 10000) { >> - s->expected_downtime = ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate * >> - qemu_target_page_size() / bandwidth; >> + s->expected_downtime = ram_bytes_remaining() / bandwidth; > > This field was removed in e4ed1541ac ("savevm: New save live migration > method: pending", 2012-12-20), in which remaing RAM was used. Unrelated O:-) > And it was added back in 90f8ae724a ("migration: calculate > expected_downtime", 2013-02-22), in which dirty rate was used. We didn't want to update the field if there haven't been enough activity. > However I didn't find a clue on why we changed from using remaining > RAM to using dirty rate... So I'll leave this question to Juan. > > Besides, I'm a bit confused on when we'll want such a value. AFAIU > precopy is mostly used by setting up the target downtime before hand, > so we should already know the downtime before hand. Then why we want > to observe such a thing? What that field means is how much time the system needs to send everything that is pending. I.e. if expected_downtime = 2seconds, it means that with current dirty rate, if we set a downtime of 2 or bigger it is going to finish migration. It is a help for upper layers to decide that: - they want a 1second downtime - system calculates with current load that they need a 2second downtime So they can decide: - change the downtime to 2seconds (easy) - change the apps running on the guest to dirty less memory (It dependes on the guest, app, etc). I don't know if anyone is using it at all. Later, Juan.
Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size, > using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct. > > Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> See my other mail on the thread, my understanding is that your change is corret (TM). Thanks, Juan. > --- > migration/migration.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c > index 58bd382730..4e43dc4f92 100644 > --- a/migration/migration.c > +++ b/migration/migration.c > @@ -2245,8 +2245,7 @@ static void migration_update_counters(MigrationState *s, > * recalculate. 10000 is a small enough number for our purposes > */ > if (ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate && transferred > 10000) { > - s->expected_downtime = ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate * > - qemu_target_page_size() / bandwidth; > + s->expected_downtime = ram_bytes_remaining() / bandwidth; > } > > qemu_file_reset_rate_limit(s->to_dst_file);
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:04:59AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: > Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size, > > using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct. > > > > Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> > > See my other mail on the thread, my understanding is that your change is > corret (TM). Juan, Please help to merge it. Regards, Bala > > Thanks, Juan. > > > --- > > migration/migration.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c > > index 58bd382730..4e43dc4f92 100644 > > --- a/migration/migration.c > > +++ b/migration/migration.c > > @@ -2245,8 +2245,7 @@ static void migration_update_counters(MigrationState *s, > > * recalculate. 10000 is a small enough number for our purposes > > */ > > if (ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate && transferred > 10000) { > > - s->expected_downtime = ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate * > > - qemu_target_page_size() / bandwidth; > > + s->expected_downtime = ram_bytes_remaining() / bandwidth; > > } > > > > qemu_file_reset_rate_limit(s->to_dst_file); >
On 2018-04-10 15:22, Balamuruhan S wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:04:59AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: >> Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> > expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size, >> > using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> >> >> See my other mail on the thread, my understanding is that your change >> is >> corret (TM). > > Juan, Please help to merge it. Sorry for asking it as during discussion going on, but the reason is currently postcopy migration for HP backed P8 guest from P8 -> P9 is broken and to use precopy with appropriate downtime value we need this patch to be backported to distros that is to be released soon. > > Regards, > Bala > >> >> Thanks, Juan. >> >> > --- >> > migration/migration.c | 3 +-- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c >> > index 58bd382730..4e43dc4f92 100644 >> > --- a/migration/migration.c >> > +++ b/migration/migration.c >> > @@ -2245,8 +2245,7 @@ static void migration_update_counters(MigrationState *s, >> > * recalculate. 10000 is a small enough number for our purposes >> > */ >> > if (ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate && transferred > 10000) { >> > - s->expected_downtime = ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate * >> > - qemu_target_page_size() / bandwidth; >> > + s->expected_downtime = ram_bytes_remaining() / bandwidth; >> > } >> > >> > qemu_file_reset_rate_limit(s->to_dst_file); >>
diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c index 58bd382730..4e43dc4f92 100644 --- a/migration/migration.c +++ b/migration/migration.c @@ -2245,8 +2245,7 @@ static void migration_update_counters(MigrationState *s, * recalculate. 10000 is a small enough number for our purposes */ if (ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate && transferred > 10000) { - s->expected_downtime = ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate * - qemu_target_page_size() / bandwidth; + s->expected_downtime = ram_bytes_remaining() / bandwidth; } qemu_file_reset_rate_limit(s->to_dst_file);
expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size, using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct. Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- migration/migration.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)